May 25, 2006
Short People Got No Reason to Go to Prison
Want to commit a crime? Specifically, a sex crime against a child? Better hope you're short, and you get this judge at your trial:
SIDNEY, Neb. - A judge said a 5-foot-1 man convicted of sexually assaulting a child was too small to survive in prison, and gave him 10 years of probation instead.
His crimes deserved a long sentence, District Judge Kristine Cecava said, but she worried that Richard W. Thompson, 50, would be especially imperiled by prison dangers.
"You are a sex offender, and you did it to a child," she said.
But, she said, "That doesn't make you a hunter. You do not fit in that category."
Thompson will be electronically monitored the first four months of his probation, and he was told to never be alone with someone under age 18 or date or live with a woman whose children were under 18. Cecava also ordered Thompson to get rid of his pornography.
He faces 30 days of jail each year of his probation unless he follows its conditions closely.
"I want control of you until I know you have integrated change into your life," the judge told Thompson. "I truly hope that my bet on you being OK out in society is not misplaced."
So put him in solitary confinement if you're worried about his safety! Here are a couple of questions: was Thompson worried about the safety (both mental and physical) of the child he assaulted? Is the judge worried about the safety of children Thompson may come into contact with?
Here's what a friend of mine said when she replied to my sending her the link to this story:
The judge is on crack!!!!! Height does not matter – a pedophile is a pedophile and labeled as such for a reason. I hope her decision is appealed by the prosecutor. If anything, his size makes him more dangerous in the outside world as children will perceive him as a child himself and he will gain their trust easily!
We have penalties for specific crimes for a reason. His being short is no reason to keep him out of jail. It's yet another example of putting the interests of the convicted criminal over those of his victim (not to mention potential future victims).
If Judge Cecava wants true control over him, why doesn't she have him live in her home under her direct supervision? Only then could she be sure that he'd be OK being out in society.
This is a truly nauseating example of a travesty of justice.
Randy Newman may have had
it right in this case.
Show Comments »
Absolutely disgusting. He should be in prison to accept some of the same treatment his victim(s) received.
Posted by: joe-6-pack at May 26, 2006 09:29 AM
